We performed a comparison between Azure Monitor and OpenText SiteScope based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Provides an overview and high-level information."
"One of the most useful aspects of this solution is the out-of-the-box functionality on all areas, especially on Application Insights, zero instrumentation, and artificial intelligence for event correlation."
"For me, the best feature is the log analysis with Azure Monitor's Log Analytics. Without being able to analyze the logs of all the activities that affect the performance of a machine, your monitoring effectiveness will be severely limited."
"Azure Monitor is very stable."
"You can scale the product."
"A product that is well-integrated for monitoring Microsoft Azure."
"The tools for logs and metrics are pretty good and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the universality of their functionalities in all Azure services, including, software solutions."
"There's no agent you need installed on the servers. In our environment, we have some servers out of our control so we cannot manage them. We use SiteScope to monitor the availability, the resources on the servers, etc. This allows us to do this job without installing agents so there's no need to take care of anything on the server."
"The product's ability to monitor systems and applications and send alerts and create support tickets are the most valuable features of the product."
"The URL monitoring is excellent."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"For the system environment, SiteScope can be useful."
"Has a simple setup. It can be up and running within hours."
"The most valuable feature of SiteScope is its infrastructure monitoring."
"Azure Monitor's integration with applications could be improved."
"Setting up this solution is complex. It's also missing the functionality of assigning alerts."
"The query builder could be better. In comparison to other monitoring tools, in order to use Azure Monitor, your engineers need to have KQL experience. If they don't, it's not intuitive as a system."
"Enhancing and reaching a level of detail that facilitates pinpointing and addressing issues at such a refined level within the application and database components would be helpful."
"The biggest one is probably just the user interface. There could be more advanced logging at the database level. They can also improve their query builder to allow you to search for things better, but I last used it about a year ago. They might have already changed a ton of things in the newer versions."
"In terms of pricing, Azure Monitor's billing based on data size can sometimes lead to increased costs, especially when developers need to purge data frequently. While there are mechanisms in place to track and manage this, there is room for improvement in terms of optimizing data pausing and related processes. Enhancements in this area could help mitigate potential billing concerns and provide a more seamless experience for users."
"The process of implementation needs to be easier."
"There is room for improvement in stability."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"I would be very interested in having transaction traceability included in the product, to give us a better view of what is really going wrong in a particular method and action."
"More out of the box Cloud integration and capabilities."
"It could be more reliable using a database repository instead of a log repository."
"It may lack some features other products in the category have like more detailed transaction tracking."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"We have four or five data centers around North America where we have it deployed into a single or a two-server primary backup type of deployment. All those are made available under a single GUI provided by Micro Focus that allows you to put them all together. A room for improvement would be an appliance or a server that would manage all of our other servers so that I don't have to remember to log on to all different servers and data centers. I could manage them from a single location."
Azure Monitor is ranked 4th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 45 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. Azure Monitor is rated 7.6, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Azure Monitor writes "A powerful Kusto query language but the alerting mechanism needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText SiteScope writes "Doesn't require much custom coding and can run on different platforms, but the types of scripting files you can execute on it are limited". Azure Monitor is most compared with Datadog, Dynatrace, Sentry, Prometheus and Grafana, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, AppDynamics and Prometheus. See our Azure Monitor vs. OpenText SiteScope report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.